Forestock on a swamped barreled rifle

[bioprof]

I think I know the answer to this question, but I'll ask it anyway. If you are using a swamped barrel, do the sides of the forestock follow the contour of the barrel or do they stay straight?

 

[bob1961]

i followed the swamped of my barrel and made the fore stock the same thickness the whole lengh....don't know if that's PC but that's what i thought would look better :v ...........bob

 

[Goldhunter]

I'm planning on making mine the same thinkness along the length (following the contour).

 

[Stophel]

Yes, 3/32" or even 1/16" of wood on each side of the barrel all the way down. Following the contour of the barrel.

This question gets asked a lot....can we make it a "sticky"? :hmm:

 

[Vaino]

I make them pretty close to a 1/16" per side following the swamp except the last 4" at the muzzle, which is then gradually increased to 3/32"-1/8" per side to correspond w/ the muzzlecap. Don't know if this is PC, but it sure exagerates the swamp and to me, improves the esthetics. The RR end also has a taper that complements the bbl swamp as seen from the side. Does anyone else do both?....Fred

 

[George Holton]

PC does anybody really care?

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Yes, Bob, some of us really do care. Sincere re-enactors for example. People who truly love the old guns and are willing to pay a premium to get an authentic piece. Generic "copies" and even in-lines have their place, but for many an authentic rifle or fowler is a true joy and a future family heirloom. I just don't understand the misguided and often snide comments about period correct firearms. Maybe it can be chalked up to P.C. envy?

 

[Zonie]

PC does anybody really care?

Some folks care very much. Some folks don't give a hoot.

To those folks interested in re-enacting, PC (Period Correct) or HC (Historically Correct) is everything. Not only the features of the gun, but the exact time frame it is suited for.

To some folks who want the 'very best' reproduction it is also very important. So much so that they are willing to wait years for a noted builder to produce their gun and they are willing to spend exorbitant amounts of money for it.

For folks who are only interested in Target shooting or Hunting or just having fun 'making smoke', PC or HC means little or nothing although if many of them are lucky enough to have a gun which exactly reproduces a gun from the past, most of them will be more than proud of it.

zonie

 

[flashpanner]

Isn't it also correct to be as close to a copy of an orginal as possible but not exact? Is it posible we coud make gunds under the impression of "interpretation" and still be PC? I get the feeling that many guns are built within the spirit of the time period. I think that even in that time period there was not a engraved in stone standard that stated that guns be built to the following exact specs. Hey we are talking about a period before ISO standard, MIL specs, gov regulation etc. I venture to say that there were proably more gunsmiths that build a very limited # of guns that never were found. They may have been slightly different than some of the "masters" of the time whose pieces are still wtih us today. Any thoughts?

 

[rich pierce]

Some things are standard. I'd propose that no original builder ever made the forestock straight (not following the contour of the barrel) when using a barrel with any appreciable swamp. That would make the forestock thicker at the waist of the barrel, ruining the desired look.

Here's what's confusing to me:
I'd expect folks who don't care about "PC" to be shooting mass-produced arms with casual resemblance to originals. Good enough at 50 yards, or maybe even 25.

Why would someone who does not care about "PC" and constantly complains when others emphasize the details found on originals even want a rifle with a swamped barrel? It does not shoot better. If balance or weight are issues and we don't care about "PC", then why not use use a short straight octagon barrel?

Why would a person who does not like anything "PC" even read a post about a forestock on a swamped barrel? To read it suggests an interest in a form of barrel that more closely emulates originals than what is commonly found on store-bought guns. It's double-minded.

Shoot what you like. Make what you like. And then tell the truth about it.
1) "This is just a rough approximation of originals, may or may not fit X or Y time period or "persona", but I don't care about that. When I am shooting my black powder gun, I am having fun and can, in my mind, be in the time frame and place I want to be." (this fits both mass produced inexpensive guns and high art "fantasy" guns).

2) "This is is a pretty good approximation of originals from X time period and place because that really appeals to me. It's as good as I need or can afford. Having one that is close to originals is important to me because it enhances my experience."

3) "This is is about as good an approximation of originals from X time period and place as I can get right now. That's what I really like."

Pick your poison and don't rain on anyone else's parade cause they "care about PC" or don't "care about PC". If somebody asks a question, why say, "Who cares?" The real question is, "why do you ask, "Who cares?"

 

[rich pierce]

I make them pretty close to a 1/16" per side following the swamp except the last 4" at the muzzle, which is then gradually increased to 3/32"-1/8" per side to correspond w/ the muzzlecap. Don't know if this is PC, but it sure exagerates the swamp and to me, improves the esthetics. The RR end also has a taper that complements the bbl swamp as seen from the side. Does anyone else do both?....Fred

Fred, I sometimes allow a little extra on the sides at the muzzle primarily to give the stock a little more strength there, while inletting the nosecap. It does accentuate the swamp also, which is a nice touch as long as it is subtle. I always use a flared ramrod.

 

[longcruise]

flashpanner, I kinda agree with you in that there is lattitude for some variations in interepetation. How many of the builders of the 18th and 19th century produced rifles that were exact copies from one month to the next? I don't know the answer, but am inclined to think that there was a bit of variation among them.

IOW, not being a precise copy of one or several of an historic builders rifles does not necessarily make it less authentic in terms of PC ir HC, does it? OTOH, who is to fault any builder or buyer who does indeed want a precise copy of a given specimen?

I admire contrmporary builders who can create those precise copies even though it's not necessarily what I want to do or own.

 

[bioprof]

Thanks for all of the comments. I didn't mean to start a debate. I have 4 different books on building longrifles, but couldn't find any discussion of what to do with the forestock when using a swamped barrel.

 

[gonzomann]

I, for one, am glad you did ask the question. I was in the same boat concerning the books not mentioning it, and I definately learned something here today! :thumbsup:

 

[grsvbs]

So why don't the books and internet show details like this? :cursing: :winking:

On the original fusil de chase contract guns do the outer silhouettes of the sides and bottom of the forestock follow the swamp? Being contract guns the styling should all be close to the same?

Gary S.

 

[tg]

I don't know that there was much swamp to the fusil barrels just taper, many of our modern swamped barrels are more extreme than the originals, maybe those who have handled some original French gyns can comment on this from a position of knowledge rather than speculation.

 

[Packdog]

I do the same Fred. Most of the guns I build have pewter nosecaps and the little at the nose helps with the pour. Plus I like the looks.

 

[rich pierce]

So why don't the books and internet show details like this? :cursing: :winking:

On the original fusil de chase contract guns do the outer silhouettes of the sides and bottom of the forestock follow the swamp? Being contract guns the styling should all be close to the same?

Gary S.

Gary, I think modern people have an expectation that they can learn anything and everything from books, or articles online, etc. It was never so in the past. We have no, zero, nada books on "how to make a flintlock rifle" from the 1700's. They did not teach their crafts by books. It was hands-on and personal. For some reason, we all want to emulate the work our forefathers did, but not their methods of teaching and learning. Please notice I said, "we". Not picking on you. But I know for a fact that I have learned more watching others work and handling originals than can be learned from books. It is very laborious and challenging to describe how to "do sculpture". That is essentially what we are doing in crafting a long arm. There are not enough words or pictures to convey every detail, the nuances.

My first scratch built rifle has MAJOR architectural flaws because I did not yet have eyes to see and did not check my work with an experienced builder as I went along. Every now and then somebody comes out of the woodwork and produces great works. But most pore over every original they can find and dog the current masters as well. They just use the books for inspiration, not real direction.

The "kit" industry has furthered this concept that anyone can produce a pleasing long gun at home, without personal instruction or extensive study and lots of practice and experience. And that's OK- it's a great way to learn.

 

[Okwaho]

So why don't the books and internet show details like this? :cursing: :winking:

On the original fusil de chase contract guns do the outer silhouettes of the sides and bottom of the forestock follow the swamp? Being contract guns the styling should all be close to the same?

Gary S.

Gary,I'm assuming you are referring to the Tulle guns when you refer to "contract guns"since they were not trade guns per se but were rather built under contract with the King of France via the Ministry de la Marine.While I haven't handled an original Fusil de chasse in a while,I have been able to closely examine three early{pre 1730}Fusils fin built in Liege two of which are trade level guns very likely Chief's guns shipped to New France and distributed to the Indian chiefs. The third is a Bourgeoisie gun probably brought over by an officer or other official.
As near as I can tell French guns including Tulles,Liegeoise guns and those made by other manufacturers such as St.Etienne,Maubege,and Charleville had tapered barrels which flared slightly about 3" from the muzzle close to the front sight.The early Tulle guns{Ca.1690-1720} generally had no rings but later guns {Ca.1720-1741}had rings.Some of the Liegeoise and other makers' Fusils fin especially the higher grade ones had a sighting rib down the top of the barrel to about the front sight.There is one extant with the rib overlaid in brass with an engraved pattern. The forestocks follow the barrel taper all the way to the muzzle and those forestocks are virtually paper thin on the old guns.Remember,though, that the old barrels had a larger breech than the modern barrels have. Ed Rayl is making a 48" barrel with a correct breech and rib for the R.E..Davis Fusil fin kit{NOT to be confused with their so called type D kit}.I hope this helps.
Tom Patton

 

[tg]

Well that makes it pretty easy to stock a replica then as with most "kits" the last three inches of the barrel is missing when you start the project.